Green Schoolyards in Low-Income Urban Neighborhoods: Natural Spaces for Positive Youth Development Outcomes

Abstract

Children from low-income families are increasingly growing up in urban areas with limited access to nature. In these environments, strategies that promote access to natural outdoor spaces, such as green schoolyards, may enhance positive youth development outcomes by promoting physical activity (PA) and prosocial behavior, as well as increasing perceptions of safety. The current study examines children’s PA and social interactions, as well as caregiver and teacher perceptions of safety, injuries, teasing/bullying, and gang activity on three newly renovated green schoolyards in low-income urban neighborhoods. A multi-method strategy, including behavioral mapping and caregiver- and teacher-reported surveys, was utilized at three time points to examine positive youth development outcomes and maintenance of effects over time. Analyses revealed that children evidenced a range of PA on the green schoolyards and demonstrated significant decreases in sedentary activity over time. The majority of children were engaged in social interactions with peers on the green schoolyards when observed. Less than 3% of interactions were negative and follow-up analyses found significant increases in positive interactions on the green schoolyards up to 24 months post-renovation. Caregivers and teachers reported increased perceptions of safety, fewer injuries, less teasing/bullying, and less gang-related activity on the renovated green schoolyards in comparison to the pre-renovation schoolyards, and these effects were maintained up to 32 months post-renovation. Overall, the study suggests that green schoolyards may promote positive development outcomes among youth living in urban, low-income neighborhoods by providing natural and safe spaces for PA and prosocial behavior.

The Relationship Between Green Space and Prosocial Behaviour Among Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review

“…Even though there was no restriction for publication date applied, all eligible studies were published between 2012-2019 and more than half (66.7%) were published in the last 3 years (2017-2019). There was an equal number (six studies) of crosssectional (Odgers et al, 2012;Amoly et al, 2014;Balseviciene et al, 2014;Sobko et al, 2018;Whitten et al, 2018;Andrusaityte et al, 2019) and experimental studies (Carrus et al, 2015;Park et al, 2016;Mayfield et al, 2017;Bates et al, 2018;van Dijk-Wesselius et al, 2018;Dopko et al, 2019). The remaining studies were of a longitudinal design (Richardson et al, 2017;McEachan et al, 2018;Van Aart et al, 2018).…”

“…The design of experimental studies varied with regards to the inclusion of a control group and measurement of the outcome before the intervention (pretest). Out of two single group experimental studies, one study was a single group post-test only experiment (Bates et al, 2018), whereas another used a single group pre-post design (Park et al, 2016). The other four experimental studies reported using a control group, including two studies with- (Mayfield et al, 2017;van Dijk-Wesselius et al, 2018) and two without pre-test (Carrus et al, 2015;Dopko et al, 2019), respectively.…”

“…The other four experimental studies reported using a control group, including two studies with- (Mayfield et al, 2017;van Dijk-Wesselius et al, 2018) and two without pre-test (Carrus et al, 2015;Dopko et al, 2019), respectively. Moreover, two (Richardson et al, 2017;McEachan et al, 2018), eight (Amoly et al, 2014;Balseviciene et al, 2014;Park et al, 2016;Mayfield et al, 2017;Van Aart et al, 2018;van Dijk-Wesselius et al, 2018;Whitten et al, 2018;Andrusaityte et al, 2019), and five (Odgers et al, 2012;Carrus et al, 2015;Bates et al, 2018;Sobko et al, 2018; About 700 (7-11 years)…”

“…Small sample sizes (<100) were reported in two experimental studies (Carrus et al, 2015;Dopko et al, 2019), whilst the largest sample size was observed in a cross-sectional study of 26,848 Australian children aged 11.9 years on average (Whitten et al, 2018). Two experimental studies recorded the number of person-observations as the unit of analysis instead of number of participants (Mayfield et al, 2017;Bates et al, 2018). Furthermore, age of participants differed across studies.…”

“…In cross-sectional studies, the age of participants ranged from 2 to 12 years-old (Odgers et al, 2012;Amoly et al, 2014;Balseviciene et al, 2014;Sobko et al, 2018;Whitten et al, 2018;Andrusaityte et al, 2019). Two experimental studies did not explicitly mention the age of participants (Mayfield et al, 2017;Bates et al, 2018). The youngest participants in experimental studies were aged 1.5 years, while 8th-grade students (aged 13-14 years depending on the country) were the oldest participant.…”